MACLEODS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD Vs. PROCARE LABORATORIES PVT. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff Macleods Pharmaceuticals Limited is engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of pharmaceuticals and medicinal preparations and has filed the present suit inter alia for injunction to prevent the acts of passing off committed by the Defendant.

(2.) The Plaintiff claims to be a well-known manufacturer of and dealer in pharmaceutical and medicinal preparations and also claims that its products enjoy a very high reputation because of their excellent quality and efficacy. Somewhere in the year 2000, the Plaintiff, based on the kind of drugs that were being manufactured, divided its pharmaceutical business into various divisions, namely, Pharma, TB-Care, Procare, Gencare and Acuphar. The subject matter of the present suit is the trademark "Procare" used in relation to Plaintiff's Procare division which is the specialty division focused on chronic care especially cardiology, thyroid disorder and anti hypertension segment. It is averred that in or around May, 2001, the Plaintiff conceived and started using the trademark "Procare" for its Procare division and has been marketing and selling the products such as Amlovas-H, OMnitan, Amlvas, Omnitam-H, Amolvas-LS, Tenomac, Amlovas-AT, Amlovas-L, Thyrox, Anti-Thyrox, PTU, KCor, Q-Pril, Dynamide, Myogrel, under the trademark "Procare" since then. The trademark "Procare", it is stated, has been used by the Plaintiff since August, 2001, on visiting cards of its Procare division, promotional literature distributed to doctors, letter heads of its Procare division, website of the Plaintiff Company i.e.: macleodspharma.com, invoices raised on C&F agents and distributors and sample gifts.

(3.) The Plaintiff claims that the Plaintiff has built up a large and valuable reputation for the aforesaid medicinal preparations sold under the trademark "Procare" on account of intrinsic quality and efficacy of the said medicinal preparations, the care and skill exercised by it in marketing the same and the labour, effort and money expended by it in promoting the sales thereof and the said trademark "Procare" has come to be associated exclusively with the Plaintiff by members of the trade and public. It is further claimed that the doctors, C&F agents, distributors and others related to pharmaceutical industry are aware that "Procare" is a division of the Plaintiff and the products bearing the said mark are associated with the Plaintiff.